Protestant Speaker at Mass

[z_0101]

Please, play devil’s advocate… my Dad would do that… even if he agreed with me, he’d still play that role every so often… it’s an honorable position to take

Let’s see if I’m up to the challenge today… you caught me at a weak moment so you may have to work with me here… I’ve four under five years running under my feet today so if the logical order isn’t straight the children might be playing marbles. )

Although I follow your argument,
The USCCB has made in my mind a very clear statement:
"No announcements should be made prior to this time, "
To me that means, that there is but only one point in the Mass where announcements may be made… The USCCB only used the moment of silence as an example… it was not intended to be a limit.

Indeed, our Archbishop has several announcements that have been sent out to the parishes… in the instructions he sent, he has made it very clear that his announcements are not to be made until the Concluding rites as indicated in the GIRM and USCCB. We are blessed with a very good Archbishop and if he has made these instructions, citing the same things as I have, then it only helps to clarify for me when the announcements are to be made.

SO how does this address OP.
Let’s move back to that same link, just above the concluding rights…

• After the Gospel proclamation, the priest celebrant preaches the Homily (66). He may do this standing at the chair, at the ambo, or at some other suitable place (136).
• After a period of silence, all stand for the Profession of Faith (67-68, 137), begun by the priest (or, if sung, by the cantor or choir).

Now there isn’t a provision for an announcement, no it says, there is to be a period of silence after the homily

Now take the admonishment
Concluding Rites
Brief announcements may then be made (90a, 166, 184). No announcements should be made prior to this time, e.g., in the period of silence after Holy Communion.

So, we have the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist
They mirror each other - I think that most Catholics would agree here… one receives the word God and then we receive the body of God (simplified)
So, if one would not want announcements during period of silence following communion - the receipt of Christ’s body, soul, and divinity
Then would it not follow that one would not want announcements during the period of silence that is supposed the follow the homily, the receipt of the word of Christ, which for the liturgy of the word mirrors the act of communion… if this were not so, then why can only a person with holy orders proclaim the Gospel and/or Homily?
So it should follow, if there is a prohibition in that silence after communion, the prohibition follows the silence that is to immediately follow the homily.
In one we are to reflect upon the act of bodily receiving our Lord and in the other we are to reflect upon receiving the word of our Lord. Having announcements or any other type of speaking/action after the homily detracts from the receipt of the word of God.

I know it’s a bit piecemeal… hard to keep the train on the tracks when the potty is being slugged with toilet paper.

GOTA RUN!

You make a good case (even if you don’t address the question I asked – namely, that the OP’s observation constitutes a ‘liturgical abuse’… )!

Yet, allow me to continue to play devil’s advocate…

In this thread, people continue to refer to the homily as a ‘time’; it’s not – it’s an event. That is, it’s “an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day”; what it does is “take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.”

On the other hand, your quotes which reference the GIRM identify the spoken word that follows the Prayer After Communion as a “short announcement.” Again, this isn’t a ‘time’, it’s an ‘announcement’.

So, the first thing to note is that the OP’s question addresses neither ‘an exposition on … readings’ nor a ‘short announcement’. Therefore, can’t we say that the GIRM does not address what the OP observed? After all, it’s not a homily! Nor is it the kind of announcement that the GIRM mentions!

The second thing to note is the language of the GIRM. In the section on the announcement, it makes both positive and negative norms: the short announcement is to take place following the Prayer After Communion; furthermore, it is not to take place in the silence following Communion. However, the section on the homily only makes positive norms: the homily takes place following the Gospel. Yet, the GIRM does not say that other forms of speech are prohibited at that time. If you want to make the case that what the OP describes is a ‘short announcement’, you might succeed; however, unless that’s your tack, how can you say that the GIRM prohibits non-homiletic speech (as an exceptional case) that follows the homily?

 

[Elizium23]

You seem unclear on the concept of what’s permitted and what’s not in Roman Catholic liturgies.

There are two general paradigms in law: “That which is not forbidden is allowed” and “That which is not allowed is forbidden”. While constitutional secular law tends to follow the former precept, liturgy follows the second in most instances.

Of course you will find things done and allowed which are not specifically forbidden. Wide latitude is given in things such as design of vestments, placement of furnishings, use of electronic equipment and lighting, and so forth.

But what it comes to the Order of Mass, that which is not allowed is forbidden. You can’t say a Hail Mary instead of the Confiteor. You can’t recite GK Chesterton in place of the Epiclesis. And you can’t give “lay reflections” during the homily, nor can you give homilies or reflections or spiritual exhortations during the time designated for announcements. It’s a pretty simple concept. No magisterial document is going to forbid Hail Marys or Chesterton, but they will not be permitted, simply because they are not part of the Mass.

 

[Gorgias]

But what it comes to the Order of Mass, that which is not allowed is forbidden.

That’s interesting. If this were absolutely the case, then the GIRM would not have had to have stated that “No announcements should be made prior to this time, e.g., in the period of silence after Holy Communion” – that would be superfluous, given that the norm states that “Brief announcements may then be made [following the Prayer After Communion].” After all, 'what’s not permitted is forbidden," right? Yet, that’s not what’s going on here – rather, we have a positive norm and a negative one: in other words, there was the need to state that it is not permitted to have announcements prior to the Prayer After Communion. In short, the very documents being quoted as proof of your argument are contradicting your assertion.

And you can’t give “lay reflections” during the homily, nor can you give homilies or reflections or spiritual exhortations during the time designated for announcements.

Actually, that’s not completely accurate. Here’s another counter-example to your claim: based on your reading of GIRM 90, 166, and 184, you assert that there may not be ‘spiritual exhortation during the time designated for announcements’; yet, GIRM 31 states that “[the presiding priest] may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.” In other words, what is not allowed in these paragraphs is not, in fact, forbidden.

 

[Elizium23]

So the presiding priest is allowed to do stuff. Where did it say a layperson is permitted to do it?

 

[Gorgias]

So the presiding priest is allowed to do stuff. Where did it say a layperson is permitted to do it?

You’ve misunderstood me, I’m afraid. I’m not showing this in answer the OP’s question; I’m showing this as a counter-example to disprove your recent assertion.

 

[Elizium23]

You’ve misunderstood me, I’m afraid. I’m not showing this in answer the OP’s question; I’m showing this as a counter-example to disprove your recent assertion.

Thanks for making me look it up. Actually you’re wrong. The Concluding Rites, part 90 of the GIRM, begin with (a) brief announcements, then (b) the Priest’s Greeting and Blessing, then (c) the Dismissal, and finally (d) the kissing of the altar. So “before the dismissal” is right before or after (b) the part for the priest, not (a). I stand by what I said, that spiritual exhortations and other junk are not permitted during the announcements (90a).

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for making me look it up.

No problem. I’m afraid to ask whether this is the first that you’ve looked it up in this discussion.

Actually you’re wrong.

Actually, you’re providing a personal interpretation.

The Concluding Rites, part 90 of the GIRM, begin with (a) brief announcements, then (b) the Priest’s Greeting and Blessing, then (c) the Dismissal, and finally (d) the kissing of the altar. So “before the dismissal” is right before or after (b) the part for the priest, not (a).

GIRM 31 states, “he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal”; if you interpret that to mean “following 90(b) and prior to 90(c)”, then you have a case. However, that’s a particular interpretation, and not specified by the GIRM. In fact, what’s usually the case is that, following the Prayer after Communion, a priest offers his comments. So, your assertion – rather narrowly construed by you, in this case – is neither what the GIRM strictly says nor what we see in practice. So, I’m not exactly certain that you can claim I’m wrong on this one…

 

[Elizium23]

No problem. I’m afraid to ask whether this is the first that you’ve looked it up in this discussion.

Yes, it actually is, because I know the GIRM quite well overall, and I’m extremely familiar with the sections that permit the homily and the announcements, because it’s a common annoyance for me, so I didn’t have to look at the GIRM to know your personal interpretation is wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it actually is, because I know the GIRM quite well overall, and I’m extremely familiar with the sections that permit the homily and the announcements, because it’s a common annoyance for me, so I didn’t have to look at the GIRM to know your personal interpretation is wrong.

LOL!

Here’s the thing, though: if the non-Catholic in question were giving a homily, I’d be completely on board with you. But… he wasn’t. And yes, I know the GIRM quite well, too, so I know that it speaks of the homily and not the ‘homily time’ that everyone seems so anxious to declare as cast in stone (or ‘in GIRM’, as the case might be).

So, something tells me that your ‘common annoyance’ is what’s driving your commentary here, more than your certainty that my “personal interpretation is wrong.”

Blessings,
G.